Adoption and Implementation of Corporate Responsibility Practices

Abstract

Defining and implementing Corporate Responsibility can be a challenge for many businesses. The identification of patterns in the processes of adoption and implementation of Corporate Responsibility practices can help managers to administer these processes more ably. In this research note, the authors identify four factors influencing the adoption and implementation of Corporate Responsibility practices: (a) internal drivers; (b) organizational structures; (c) attributes of practice; and (d) formal processes. Results indicate that there is also a continuous improvement component, meaning that the adoption and implementation of Corporate Responsibility practices are cyclical, rather than linear, processes.

Keywords

corporate responsibility adoption implementation forest sector qualitative

Corporate Responsibility (CR) is a difficult concept for businesses to interpret and implement. In light of the fact that CR lacks a generally accepted definition, has multiple dimensions (i.e., economic, social, and environmental), and requires a balanced representation of interests from multiple stakeholder groups (Carroll, 1979; Eilbirt & Parket, 1973; Johnson, 1971; Morimoto, Ash, & Hope, 2005; Whitehouse, 2006), the implementation of CR practices can be a troublesome task for many businesses.

Over the years, efforts have focused on improving our understanding of the CR concept, with the aim of finding a simpler, universal definition and/or standardization of practices across industry sectors and contexts (Vidal & Kozak, 2008a). The difficulty in defining or standardizing CR arises from its multidimensionality, its constant evolution, and its strong dependence on contextual characteristics. For the purposes of this research note, the authors define CR as being the practices that companies adopt to address the social and environmental impacts of their operations. These CR practices may range from energy efficiency measures and environmental certifications to stakeholder engagement and philanthropic programs (Vidal & Kozak, 2008a).

The same issues that make CR a difficult concept to define also make its implementation very complex. Choosing the right combination of activities is one of the major challenges of implementing CR practices. A variety of activities can be adopted, ranging from lobbying and philanthropic programs to minimizing the environmental impacts of industrial practices. Many times, choosing from this pool of activities requires difficult decisions and trade-offs on the part of the companies. This topic has been widely discussed in the literature and suggestions include: (a) choosing CR activities that have strategic importance; (b) prioritizing CR issues based on importance; (c) prioritizing CR issues based on their impacts on stakeholder groups; and (d) having robust CR strategies that allow for changing stakeholder expectations (Adizes & Weston, 1973; Carroll, 1979, 1991; Dalton & Daily, 1991; Epstein, 1987; Fitch, 1976; Johnson, 1971). Even though these suggestions provide some direction on selecting appropriate CR activities, they offer little in the way of guidance on the actual processes of adoption and implementation of CR practices.

Having a better understanding of the processes of adoption and implementation of CR within organizations may serve to demystify CR for potential adopters. This study aims to better understand the processes of adoption and implementation of CR practices within businesses, with the objective of identifying the factors that influence these processes.

Background

Models and frameworks explaining CR address some of the steps necessary for the adoption and implementation of CR practices. The Corporate Social Performance (CSP) model, proposed by Carroll (1979), suggests that operationalization of CR consists of three interrelated dimensions: (a) establishing a definition of CR (corporate responsibility dimension); (b) identifying the issues that need to be addressed (social issues dimension); and (c) defining the types of responses to these issues (corporate responsiveness dimension).

Other authors (Wartick & Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991) propose expansions to this model by addressing specific issues involved in the adoption and implementation of CR. Wartick and Cochran (1985) suggest that the corporate responsiveness dimension might be better operationalized when seen within the realm of “social issues management” (SIM). Wood (1991) argues that a large portion of SIM research falls within the scope of corporate social responsiveness and that these two dimensions could be combined under one single dimension called “processes of corporate social responsiveness.” She also suggests that a more appropriate third dimension of the model would include the outcomes of corporate behavior manifested in the form of social impacts, programs, and policies (Wood, 1991). The present authors use Wood’s version of the CSP model as a point of reference for this study.

In particular, the authors are interested in the corporate social responsiveness dimension, the action phase of the CSP model. This phase focuses on the implementation of responsible practices (Frederick, 1994; Wood, 1991). Few studies have concentrated on identifying the conditions and processes necessary for the implementation of corporate social responsiveness. Ackerman (1975) identifies a three-phase social response process. First, the firm draws up a response, usually in the form of corporate policies, to social demands identified through monitoring its external environment. Next, the firm goes through a learning process to develop the skills necessary to implement the new practice(s). A specialist in the social issue being addressed usually oversees this phase. Lastly, commitment toward implementation of the practice(s) is built within the firm at operational levels.

Similarly, Post (1978) argues, based on general agreement in the literature, that the corporate response process has three stages: (a) awareness of the need to address a social issue, usually as a result of interactions with the external environment; (b) commitment to action through policy endorsement of existing practices or development of new policies; and (c) selection and implementation of response(s). This last stage includes assigning management responsibility for the implementation of the chosen practice.

Although these social issue response processes shed some light on the steps undertaken in corporate social responsiveness processes, there remain gaps when one delves further into the actual implementation of CR practices; details of how decision-making processes occur, how new practices are communicated and implemented throughout the company, and if and how the structure of the company is altered as a result of the processes of adoption and implementation not being well documented. The literature that the authors reviewed offers little in the way of information about factors that influence the adoption and implementation of CR practices. The few factors that have been identified as playing a role in the social response process include leadership and the organizational environment (Ackerman, 1975; Post, 1978).

Still less information exists on the need to consider context when implementing new CR practices. It is difficult to properly evaluate corporate social performance without taking such considerations into account (Sethi, 1975). A company’s context plays a large role in determining who the stakeholders are and, consequently, what types of social issues should be adopted and implemented (Strand, 1983; Vidal & Kozak, 2008a). Both internal and external contextual characteristics may play a role in these decisions. Company characteristics, such as company size, organizational culture, and leadership, define internal context. External context is framed by the geographical, economic, political, and social characteristics of the setting where companies operate. However, with the exception of recognizing that the external environment plays a role in triggering the social response process (Ackerman, 1975; Post, 1978), very little of the literature explicitly discusses how context can influence the choice of practices to be adopted and implemented.

As Ackerman (1975, p. 62) states, “If a recurring pattern can be identified and analyzed, it can also be consciously managed.” This study attempts to identify factors influencing the process of adoption and implementation of CR practices as well as the stages involved in these processes. In identifying factors and stages associated with the process of response to social issues, the authors hope to contribute to the theory of corporate social performance and inform our understanding of the processes of the adoption and implementation of CR practices for business practitioners.

Method

This study is part of larger research project investigating forest companies’ understanding of CR, the evolution of the CR concept in the forest sector over the past decade, and the diffusion, adoption, and implementation of CR practices by forest companies around the world (Vidal, 2010; Vidal, Bull, & Kozak, 2010; Vidal & Kozak, 2008a, 2008b).

Data for this study was collected through 19 personal and telephone interviews with key informants in 10 large forest companies operating in Brazil (5), Canada (3), and the United States (2). In an attempt to triangulate and validate common themes from the interviews, a total of 204 company and publicly available documents were also included in the analysis. Data were analyzed qualitatively with NVivo 8 software. For the purposes of this study, interviews and documents were coded for factors that affect the adoption and implementation of CR practices within companies. Key emergent themes, supported by findings from the relevant business literature, are reported below. Data for the entire project on forest companies and CR was collected concurrently. However, data for this present study (i.e., on the adoption and implementation of CR) have not been used in any other part of the larger research project.

Results

Data reveal four factors influencing the adoption and implementation of CR practices in forest companies: (a) internal drivers; (b) organizational structure; (c) attributes of practice; and (d) formal processes. These four factors may be interconnected, influencing one another. Results also indicate that the process of adoption and implementation of CR has a continuous improvement aspect, meaning that the adoption and implementation of CR is an iterative process. Figure 1 illustrates how these categories relate to one another and influence the process of adoption and implementation of CR practices. Dashed lines indicate a connection between categories and arrows indicate an influence. Connections demonstrate that there is a relationship between categories, although the nature of this relationship is not clear from the data analysis. An influence indicates that one category affects another. This framework is new and there is room for improvement. Therefore, empty areas within the sphere represent theoretical space for the addition of other influencing phenomena. A previous publication (Vidal et al., 2010) traced the flow of information related to CR in the external environment of forest companies and helped to provide an understanding of how information on CR is diffused to these firms. Figure 1 is different in that it illustrates how companies adopt and implement CR once they have already received information about it.

Figure 1.

Framework explaining the adoption and implementation of Corporate Responsibility practices.

Internal Drivers

Respondents argue that much of the motivation to adopt and implement CR practices is due to internal drivers. From their responses, internal drivers can originate either inside or outside of company borders and are influenced by various contextual characteristics, which can also exist both within the company’s internal and external environments (Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek, 1973).

Not all contextual characteristics, internal or external, may serve as drivers for the adoption of CR. Contextual characteristics exist in dynamic environments and their relevance and degree of influence on company behavior may change considerably over time. In a sense, the adoption of CR practices is a result of companies’ needs to constantly adapt to their internal and external environments (Bowen, 1953; Sethi, 1975). The authors call these contextual characteristics drivers when they exert influence on company behavior.

Oftentimes, company culture is connected to the founders, owners, and CEOs of the companies (Kitchell, 1995). Respondents frequently refer to CR as being a part of the company history and/or the personal ethics of founders and owners, as well as being part of the core values, commitments, and philosophies of the company. Leadership is also mentioned as being a crucial driver of change. Individual characteristics of leaders positively influence organizational creation and the adoption of new practices (Rogers, 2003).

Several responding companies connect their decisions to implement CR practices to their business strategies. According to Bansal and Roth (2000), companies tend to make decisions to adopt new practices based on their contribution to long-term profitability and competitiveness. Some responding companies indicate that the adoption of certain CR practices makes good business sense. Some practices, however, are adopted as responses to external drivers, such as requests from clients, stakeholders and/or industry associations, behavior of competitors, and trends in the marketplace. Therefore, external characteristics and drivers, such as the request of a client, stakeholder, or industry association, can be internalized to become internal drivers for the adoption of CR practices.

Organizational Structures

Organizational structures refer to the formal and informal set of rules for organizations to facilitate responsibilities, communications, and lines of authority. Organizational structures determine how decision making occurs and how information flows within companies. As such, this internal contextual characteristic influences the adoption and implementation of practices within companies (Rogers, 2003; Zaltman et al., 1973).

Data indicate three aspects of participating companies’ organizational structures as playing a role in the adoption and implementation of CR. These aspects are their management structures, the job descriptions of employees, and the decision-making processes related to the adoption and implementation of CR practices.

Management structures

Management structures refer to the organization of management and the hierarchical levels within firms. Respondents describe the types of management structures that they had in place or had created to address the adoption and implementation of CR practices. Creating an appropriate management structure is frequently seen as an important way of diffusing and embedding CR practices within companies.

When creating these structures, companies either replicate their corporate structures within their units, create groups that are responsible for CR issues across the company, or a combination of both. Therefore, it appears that there are common structures that facilitate the adoption and implementation of CR practices across companies. This is in line with Rogers (2003) and Van de Ven (1986) who find that, in adapting innovations, a company may modify some of its structure to facilitate this adaptation. As a result, innovations can serve to modify company structures. This mutual adaptation is considered to be a necessity due to the fact that companies and innovations almost never fit together perfectly (Rogers, 2003; Van de Ven, 1986).

Creating a management structure can also define systems of accountability for practices within a company related to the implementation and enforcement of CR. Companies also cite the number of hierarchical levels within an organization as a factor that influences the flow of information regarding CR practices. In general, fewer hierarchical levels tend to facilitate adoption and implementation. This point is supported by a number of previous studies (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Hage & Aiken, 1970; Thompson, 1967; Zaltman et al., 1973).

Job descriptions

While management structures can provide systems of accountability within different levels of the company, job descriptions establish accountability at the individual level. Every employee within a company is responsible for making decisions. The responsibilities specified in the job descriptions of each employee determine the role that they play in decision-making processes, such as the adoption and implementation of CR practices.

Each job description, depending on its position within the company hierarchy, has different levels of responsibility. Positions at higher levels tend to have broader and more strategic responsibilities. Positions located lower in the hierarchy have narrower scopes of responsibility and usually tend to address the operational details of practices being implemented (Hage & Aiken, 1970; Thompson, 1967). As a result, each position provides a distinct contribution to the adoption and implementation of CR practices.

Job descriptions not only determine tasks and responsibilities but also determine the budget connected to those tasks and responsibilities, at least at the managerial level. According to respondents, the costs involved in adopting and implementing a CR practice are important considerations. Budgets delimit the types of decisions that can be made locally or those that require approval from higher levels in the organization. This influences the time and path of adoption and implementation processes for these practices.

Decision making

Results show that certain characteristics of decision-making processes have a direct influence on the adoption and implementation of CR practices. The appropriate combination of individuality and centralization of decision making among different units of a company appears to be an important factor in the path taken by and the time required for CR practices to be implemented throughout a business. However, finding the right balance between centralization and individuality of a unit’s decision-making processes can be a difficult task. This need to balance is consistent with the works of Hage and Aiken (1970) and Zaltman et al. (1973), who state that company-wide participation in decision-making processes may reduce resistance to the adoption of a new practice as well as increase employees’ commitment to the implementation process. Our results show that individuality of decision making is necessary when taking into account differences in local contexts of each unit. On the other hand, centralization of decision making is necessary for aligning practices with core company strategies.

Respondents identify the degree of integration and collaboration of activities among units within their companies as another factor influencing this notion of an appropriate individuality-centralization mix. The degree of integration is based on how the operations for different units connect with one another and depends largely on the types of connections that are in place, such as one unit providing raw materials to another. This interconnectedness, in turn, influences the amount of information about CR practices that is exchanged among the units (Rogers, 2003; Zaltman et al., 1973), as well as the degree of collaboration with respect to the adoption, implementation, and decision making surrounding these practices.

Decision making processes also influence the path and time taken for the adoption and implementation of CR. Results indicate that there appear to be some common paths followed when making decisions about such topics and that they are connected to different attributes of practice. Depending on where an idea for a CR practice originates within the company, decision making pertaining to this idea can take different paths. If an idea originates at higher levels of the company, it diffuses down the ranks to the implementation levels (i.e., top-down). If the practice originates somewhere else in the company, and depending on attributes such as costs and strategic importance, the idea will likely go to the top management for approval and then return to lower levels for implementation (i.e., bottom-up and then top-down).

The numbers and types of approval channels that a practice must pass through before being implemented not only depend on the practice but also on the preestablished procedures and structure of the company in question. The notion of “gatekeeping” (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Zaltman et al., 1973) can be associated with these decision-making paths. “Some innovations require going through a large number of approval channels before it can be effectively adopted, whereas others do not” (Zaltman et al., 1973, p. 44). Gatekeepers are individuals that control (positively or negatively) the flow of information about a new practice and, consequently, influence the process of adoption and implementation (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). A gatekeeping function is usually associated with job descriptions, which in turn, influence the decision-making path.

Attributes of Practice

The attributes of the practice being implemented are another important factor influencing the paths and lengths of time taken for the adoption and implementation of CR practices. Some of the attributes that emerged from this data analysis include: the place of origin of the practices within the company; the costs involved in the adoption and implementation of the practices; the scope of the changes resulting from the adoption and implementation of the practices; the degree of standardization of the practices; and the alignment of the practices with company strategies.

Respondents declare that ideas to implement certain CR practices can originate anywhere within the company. Generally, however, ideas tend to come from one of two places: the executive level of the companies or operational levels. The place of origin influences how the adoption and implementation of the practices happen, and the paths they will take during this process. As stated above, place of origin is one of the factors influencing the decision making path for practices which, in turn, influences the path and time of the adoption and implementation processes.

Most participating companies emphasize that the adoption of a new or improved CR practice is contingent on financial constraints. Depending on the amount of capital required to implement a practice, a different decision-making path is taken, which influences the adoption and implementation paths and timelines.

Like costs, the amount of change that will be incurred from the adoption and implementation of a practice also influences the decision making process. Usually, the greater the costs and scope of changes required in the adoption of a practice, the higher in the company hierarchy the decision is made. In these cases, the entire decision making process is more formal, requiring documentation of proposals and formal communication exchanges. This formalization, in turn, influences the time and path of the adoption and implementation process.

The degree of standardization of the practice also plays a role in its adoption and implementation. Practices can have local/regional or universal (i.e., company-wide) applicability. Universal practices tend to have a high degree of standardization. They are usually more strategic in nature and broader in scope to be applicable and relevant to all company units and operations. These universal practices are usually developed or standardized at executive levels of the company. It is also necessary to standardize a practice before diffusing it through the entire company. Local/regional practices are much more specific and detailed and, thus, tend to have a low degree of standardization and localized applicability.

Alignment of the practice with company strategies is another attribute that emerged from the data. Companies partly base their decisions to adopt and implement new or improved practices based on how those practices align with broader company goals and strategies.

Formal Processes

When adopting and implementing CR practices, respondents indicate that they put in place certain mechanisms to ensure that changes are made and implemented appropriately. The authors call these mechanisms formal processes because they create the formalities and rules necessary to change behavior within the company. In general, formal processes are present in all areas of a company, as well as in the different stages of adoption and implementation of CR practices. The formal processes that emerged from this analysis take the forms of company policies, temporary groups, structural tools, and performance monitoring mechanisms.

Company policies are formal processes that create an alignment of practices throughout the business. Respondents state that their policies serve to foster responsible behavior, show commitment to CR practices, and guide the actions of their employees on CR issues. Company policies also standardize behavior throughout the company and serve as a reference point to employees.

Temporary groups, such as task forces or work groups, are common formal processes created when companies need to further explore topics, problems, or areas identified for change (Gersick, 1988). These groups, usually cross-functional and multidisciplinary, are responsible for gathering the appropriate information and designing the processes and/or rules necessary for decision making, implementation, and monitoring of CR practices. Respondents relate the establishment of temporary groups for the development or implementation of other formal processes, such as company policies and structural tools.

Structural tools, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification standards, Environmental Management Systems (EMS), third-party certification systems, and Total Quality Management (TQM), are examples of formal processes. ISO standards or similar tools help companies to set priorities, plan, and implement new concepts and activities. Structural tools serve to standardize CR practices throughout the company which, in turn, facilitate the diffusion of practices. Responding companies also state that structural tools help in achieving and operationalizing goals and in showing their commitment to CR practices.

Performance monitoring mechanisms are formal processes established to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of CR practices. Many activities within companies have a process of performance monitoring built into them, such as structural tools like ISO and forest certification systems. The results of these evaluation processes can reveal improvement opportunities for the company’s CR practices. Thus, performance monitoring mechanisms create the conditions necessary for continuous improvement of practices. These mechanisms tend to exist in the form of metrics, indicators, and internal and external audits.

By introducing new rules and procedures for company activities, formal processes increase the “formalization“ of the company, a concept Zaltman et al. (1973) describe as the emphasis that an organization puts on following rules and procedures. The authors theorize that high degrees of formalization may inhibit a company’s decision to adopt a new practice. However, formalization decreases uncertainty, which is desired during the implementation of an innovation (Zaltman et al., 1973). Some formal processes, such as structural tools, create a high degree of formalization, facilitating the adoption and implementation of CR practices. In the case of company policies, the rules created are generally broad enough to engender some degree of formalization, which fosters the adoption of new CR practices, instead of hindering them.

It should also be noted that some formal processes per se are considered to be CR practices due to the legitimacy that they confer to companies that adopt them. An example would be structural tools, such as ISO certification standards, which require companies to develop a number of other CR practices to receive a certificate. Once a company receives one of these certificates, it is assumed that all the other systems and practices are in place. Therefore, these tools provide legitimacy to the companies adopting them.

Continuous Improvement

Results suggest that the adoption and implementation of CR practices rarely require companies to start from scratch. Instead, companies usually build new practices based on what they already have in place. In this sense, CR can be thought of as how well (or how poorly) current company practices fit with those that society expects of them (Zenisek, 1979). Once the gap between current and expected behaviors has been identified, companies make the necessary changes and/or additions to their current practices, at least tentatively, to fill this gap. Rarely are these changes so extreme as to require the company to ignore the majority of its current practices. Instead, they will continue to work on correcting, improving, or complementing existing ones. Therefore, the adoption and implementation of CR practices can be seen to involve incrementally changing and continually improving existing practices and behaviors.

Continuous improvement implies a cyclic, rather than linear, process. The formal process of performance monitoring plays an important role in closing this loop. Performance monitoring mechanisms provide the necessary structure for constant evaluation of practices. Through these mechanisms, companies identify necessary changes, which are then cycled back into the system.

Connection of This Study to the Larger Research Project on Forest Companies and CR

This study is part of a larger research project that investigates the diffusion, adoption, and implementation of CR in the forest sector (Vidal, 2010). Although each phase stands alone, the results presented here complement those of another phase of this research project on diffusion of CR practices to companies (Vidal et al., 2010). While Vidal et al. (2010) focused on how the concept of CR is diffused to companies (i.e., outside company borders), this study concentrates on what happens within companies once the concept of CR has infiltrated company borders. In so doing, these studies cumulatively provide a holistic overview of how CR practices are diffused, adopted, and implemented in companies. The results of these studies provide a novel consideration of what occurs at the interface between company borders and the external environment.

Results from Vidal et al. (2010) and this current study indicate that the motivation to adopt CR practices comes from a combination of internal and external drivers. External drivers, such as the behavior of competitors and stakeholder demands, are usually internalized and transformed into internal drivers for adopting CR practices. Company leaders are another important factor in both studies; they act as internal drivers for the adoption of CR and they also serve to connect the internal and external company environments (Vidal et al., 2010). In bringing information about CR into the company, leaders serve not only as diffusion channels for this concept, but also as conduits for the internalization of external drivers, further driving and supporting the adoption and implementation of CR practices (Hage & Aiken, 1970; Rogers, 2003).

Vidal et al. (2010) also identified that experts and expert organizations (e.g. nonprofit organizations, consultants, industry or trade associations, and academics) can act as powerful drivers for the adoption of CR, as well as sources of information for companies prior to and during the implementation of CR practices. The results of this study indicate that practices with high costs and high strategic importance usually require approval and support by top management before being successfully adopted and implemented. Therefore, it could be argued that experts and expert organizations serve an important role of communicating information regarding CR directly to company leaders, especially during the initial exploration and adaptation phases.

Implications and Conclusions

This study endeavors to understand the process by which companies adopt and implement Corporate Responsibility (CR) practices. The Corporate Social Performance (CSP) model (Wood, 1991) suggests a tridimensional approach to the operationalization of CR: (a) principles (defining the concept for the company); (b) processes (developing a response to the issues identified); and (c) outcomes of the corporate behavior (programs and policies). In this study, the authors concentrate on the processes of corporate social responsiveness dimension of the CSP model.

Results show that both internal and external factors influence the processes of adoption and implementation of CR practices. These findings have both applied and theoretical implications. The framework developed here offers a preliminary attempt to fill the gap that currently exists in the CR literature regarding its adoption and implementation. It lays a foundation for a better understanding of these constructs and provides a possible starting point for future research on the adoption and implementation of CR practices.

This research also has applied applications. Results show the process of adopting new CR practices broken down into what is hoped to be more digestible pieces. It is expected that this framework will provide managers with a broad overview of the factors that may influence their decisions to adopt and implement CR practices. Not only does the proposed framework suggest some factors that should be considered, but also it allows for practitioners to better understand the interrelationships and patterns that exist between them and, consequently, should facilitate the management of the response process for adopting and implementing CR practices.

This study also offers opportunities for further research. For instance, there is a need to empirically test the framework proposed in this study explaining the adoption and implementation of CR practices. Specifically, it would be useful to test this framework using quantitative methods and a larger and more diverse sample of firms. This improved testing would further verify the accuracy of this framework and possibly provide material for fine-tuning the model developed here.

The inherent complexity of the CR concept may discourage some businesses from adopting it. This study identifies factors that influence the adoption and implementation of CR practices and it is hoped that the framework proposed here will advance inquiry on CR practices and help to demystify CR for potential adopters.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Natalia Vidal (PhD, University of British Columbia) is an assistant professor of business and society at the University of New Mexico, Anderson School of Management. Her research interests concentrate on sustainability, corporate responsibility, and sustainable supply chain management. Her publications have appeared in such journals as Forest Policy and Economics, Forest Products Journal, International Forestry Review, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, and Journal of Sustainable Forestry.

Robert A. Kozak (PhD, University of British Columbia) is a professor at the University of British Columbia Faculty of Forestry and Head of the Department of Wood Science. His current research and teaching interests revolve around sustainable business management practices in the forest sector, with a focus on the well-being of forest-dependent communities, international development and poverty alleviation strategies, forest certification, corporate social responsibility, and forest sector sustainability and competitiveness. His articles have appeared in such journals as Forestry Chronicle, Forest Policy and Economics, Forest Products Journal, International Forestry Review, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, and Journal of Environmental Management.

Eric Hansen (PhD, Virginia Tech) is a professor of forest products marketing in the Department of Wood Science and Engineering, Oregon State University. He focuses on marketing practices in the forest sector and organizational innovation. He is the coauthor of a textbook, Strategic Marketing in the Global Forest Industries. His publications can be found in such journals as Canadian Journal of Forest Research, Forest Science, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Forest Ecology and Management, Journal of Public Affairs, Journal of Small Business Management, and Social Responsibility Journal.

References

Ackerman

R. W.

(1975). The social challenge to business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Adizes

Weston

J. F.

(1973). Comparative models of social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 16(1), 112-128.

Bansal

Roth

(2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 717-736.

Bowen

H. R.

(1953). Social responsibility of the businessman. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Burns

Stalker

G. M.

(1961). The management of innovation. London, UK: Tavistock.

Carroll

A. B.

(1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.

Carroll

A. B.

(1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.

Cohen

W. M.

Levinthal

D. A.

(1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.

Dalton

D. R.

Daily

C. M.

(1991). The constituents of corporate responsibility: Separate, but not separable, interests? Business Horizons, 34(4), 74-78.

10.

Eilbirt

Parket

I. R.

(1973). The current status of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 16(4), 5-14.

11.

Epstein

E. M.

(1987). The corporate social policy process: Beyond business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and corporate social responsiveness. California Management Review, 29(3), 99-114.

12.

Fitch

H. G.

(1976). Achieving corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 1(1), 38-46.

13.

Frederick

W. C.

(1994). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Business & Society, 33, 150-164.

14.

Gersick

C. J. G.

(1988). Time and transition in work teams toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9-41.

15.

Hage

Aiken

(1970). Social change in complex organizations. New York, NY: Random House.

16.

Johnson

(1971). Business in contemporary society: Framework and issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

17.

Kitchell

(1995). Corporate culture, environmental adaptation, and innovation adoption: A qualitative/quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 195-205.

18.

Morimoto

Ash

Hope

(2005). Corporate social responsibility audit: From theory to practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 315-325.

19.

Post

J. E.

(1978). Corporate behavior and social change. Reston, VA: Reston.

20.

Rogers

E. M.

(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

21.

Sethi

S. P.

(1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17(3), 58-64.

22.

Strand

(1983). A systems paradigm of organizational adaptations to the social environment. Academy of Management Review, 8(1), 90-96.

23.

Thompson

J. D.

(1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

24.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590-607.

25.

Vidal

(2010). Diffusion, adoption, and implementation of corporate responsibility practices in the forest sector: A proposed framework (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, Faculty of Forestry, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

26.

Vidal

N. G.

Bull

G. Q.

Kozak

R. A.

(2010). Diffusion of corporate responsibility practices to companies: The experience of the forest sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 553-567.

27.

Vidal

N. G.

Kozak

R. A.

(2008a). Corporate responsibility practices in the forestry sector: Definitions and the role of context. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 31, 59-75.

28.

Vidal

N. G.

Kozak

R. A.

(2008b). The recent evolution of corporate responsibility practices in the forestry sector. International Forestry Review, 10(1), 1-13.

29.

Wartick

S. L.

Cochran

P. L.

(1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 758-769.

30.

Whitehouse

(2006). Corporate social responsibility: Views from the frontline. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 279-296.

31.

Wood

D. J.

(1991). Social issues in management: Theory and research in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 17, 383-406.

32.

Zaltman

Duncan

Holbek

(1973). Innovations and organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley.

33.

Zenisek

T. J.

(1979). Corporate social responsibility: A conceptualization based on organizational literature. Academy of Management Review, 4, 359-368.